Howard Dean's foreign policy

[Tigermike 3,058]

Howard Dean's foreign policy

David Limbaugh

December 16, 2003

Can somebody please tell me what the big deal was about Howard Dean's "major foreign policy address" in Los Angeles on Monday? In his speech he offered nothing new -- except to announce that Saddam's capture was no big deal.

The New York Times approvingly calls Dean's foreign policy "nuanced" -- liberal speak for erudite. I call it shallow and misguided. You can review Dean's speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 25 and see that Monday's speech was just a rehash. The only things that have changed are that it's a half a year later and Dean and the media have apparently decided it's time that Dean -- the antiwar, anti-Bush phenom -- acquire some foreign policy credentials as the Democrats' last best hope to unseat the evil George Dubya.

Before addressing foreign policy issues, Dean made the obligatory appeal to class warfare, saying "a domestic policy centered on increasing the wealth of the wealthiest Americans, and ceding power to favored corporate campaign contributors, is a recipe for economic disaster."

While liberal elites are fond of boasting that their center of power is in the blue states, where people are educated and enlightened, they have never reconciled that claim with their endless appeal to morons who will swallow the lie that Republican domestic policy is aimed at making the rich richer.

Shifting to foreign policy, Dean said, "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." Perhaps so, perhaps not, but I think it's reasonable to conclude that Saddam's capture will be demoralizing to his terrorist followers and supporters who happen to be waging war against American soldiers. Come on, Howard, can't you express a little jubilation about that?

But at least Dean is consistent. The New Republic reported that "when the statue of Saddam Hussein came crumbling down in Baghdad's Firdos Square, Howard Dean blithely remarked that he 'suppose(d) that's a good thing.' It wasn't exactly his finest hour." No, it wasn't. Nor was his earlier reaction to the deaths of Saddam's brutal sons Uday and Qusay, when he said, "The ends do not justify the means."

Why do you suppose the Democrats' leading candidate just can't seem to show enthusiasm about America's military triumphs? Why is his knee-jerk reaction so consistently negative? Maybe we should think of it as "nuanced."

Dean said that he would "strengthen our military and intelligence capabilities so we are best prepared to defend America and our interests." I found that interesting, in light of his previous statements that although he would not reduce military spending, he would "redirect" a chunk of it toward the development of renewable energy technology. (Perhaps the New York Times can help Mr. Dean "nuance" his way out of that discrepancy.)

But the thrust of Dean's speech was directed at calling Bush a liar -- in so many words -- and calling for multilateralism as a panacea for all our foreign policy problems.

As for Bush being a liar, Dean said he would restore "the credibility that comes from telling the truth," and "honor and integrity by insisting that intelligence be evaluated to shape policy, instead of making it a policy to distort intelligence." These lies about the "lies" is getting old -- and I doubt it's playing well, except among the fire-breathing Bush-haters.

As for multilateralism, Dean said, "the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help and at unbelievable cost. ... An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam's ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk."

"Multilateralism" is the Democrats' substitute for a real foreign policy, their favorite excuse to avoid taking action, and their favorite tool to taint Republican foreign policy successes. If only we'd had the cooperation of more nations, everything would have been miraculously better.

Sorry, Mr. Dean, but the voting public -- except, perhaps, for heavy pockets in the intelligence-saturated blue states -- isn't going to accept the mindless notion that foreign policy successes become failures because we didn't have every nation on board, or because certain European leftist nations balked at the proper course of action.

While some in the media treated Dean's speech as newsworthy, it was just more of the same. The truth is that neither Dean nor any of the other Democratic presidential hopefuls have anything to sell the American people in their foreign policy inventory -- so they're fabricating phantom goods. I'm betting they won't sell any better.

[WarTim 3,457]

One question........Who is howard dean?

I have never heard of him.

Oh, WAR EAGLE ! ! !

[Jenny AU-92 0]

As for multilateralism, Dean said, "the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help and at unbelievable cost. ... An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam's ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk."

HUH??? How could anyone "rebuild Iraq" WITHOUT Saddam's ouster???

Please, someone enlighten me... :roll:

[Ranger12 46]

At first, I did not see why everbody was saying that the capture of Saddam hurt Dean's campaign. That was until I finally heard what he said. Not a very intelligent thing to say. Hussien is pure evil, but the world is no safer with his capture. Hmm.....

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

I read Howie's speech re the capture of Saddam just to see if he would even acknowledge it as a good thing for the Iraqi people. No such luck: "America is not safer because of it (Saddam's capture.)" Man, it must be depressing to think that your only chance at winning an election is for America to fail.

[cman 0]

Dean is a scary individual. He turned his state into virtually the closest thing to a Socialist Republic as any state out there. His mandated healthcare views virtually eliminate competition and his "smaller" military policies will further deplete our reserves as we will have to call up virtually all of our reserves to do day to day tasks in the military. He will try and create a "balanced budget by reducing full time military so he can pay reserves roughly a 1/3 of what a active member gets paid.

Furthermore, his higher taxes will definetly cause unrest with corporations and hw will probably introduce legislation to legalize late term abortions again.

The virtual elimination of the 2nd amendment.......I can go on and on. He is so far left Al Sharpton had to do a double take

Scary man......and he is gaining momentum and money

wde

[DKW 86 7,447]

Scary man......and he is gaining momentum and money

Just like a train before a bad wreck.

Zell Miller and others have said the Dems are likely big losers in 2004.

Dean popularity now comes from his bashing Bush and the War effort early and often in the Dem Primary visits.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

i thot dean was pro-2nd Amendment...pro "guns". do i have that wrong?

dean is in a funny (awkward) position right now. a majority of both parties dislike him and hope he fails...yet he's the likely nominee.

ct

[cman 0]

I have only heard him speak on this subject once and I believe he used the term "increased gun control accountability"

wde

[Tiger Al 0]

Yes, cman, Howard Dean is so out of control when it comes to your guns and he wants nothing more than to see every firearm out of the American peoples hands. In fact, he's been endorsed like eight times by some radical anti-gun lobby group called the National Rifle Association.

[Tigermike 3,058]

It isn't often that Al and I agree, but to be accurate, here is gun control info on Dr. Dean.

Endorsed by NRA eight times as VT governor. (Oct 31)

Supports assault weapons ban and Brady bill. (Apr 10)

Get guns off the national radar screen: no new federal laws. (Nov 2002)

No more federal gun laws; leave them to states. (Nov 2002)

[Tiger Al 0]

It isn't often that Al and I agree, but to be accurate, here is gun control info on Dr. Dean.

Endorsed by NRA eight times as VT governor. (Oct 31)

Supports assault weapons ban and Brady bill. (Apr 10)

Get guns off the national radar screen: no new federal laws. (Nov 2002)

No more federal gun laws; leave them to states. (Nov 2002)

I think that you and I will agree that the lemonade that you buy for me will be the tastiest either one of us has ever had!!!

[Tigermike 3,058]

It isn't often that Al and I agree, but to be accurate, here is gun control info on Dr. Dean.

Endorsed by NRA eight times as VT governor. (Oct 31)

Supports assault weapons ban and Brady bill. (Apr 10)

Get guns off the national radar screen: no new federal laws. (Nov 2002)

No more federal gun laws; leave them to states. (Nov 2002)

I think that you and I will agree that the lemonade that you buy for me will be the tastiest either one of us has ever had!!!

Not so fast my friend. Just because I stood up for you on that one point in this thread, does not mean I think Dr. Dean will win. In fact the website where I got the info still lists Dr Dean as,,,,,,,,,,

Howard Dean is a Hard-Core Liberal.

When the primaries are past and Dean has to stand out there all alone, he will be exposed for what he is and voters will run in droves away from him. He may be exposed as even more liberal than Bill Clinton.

Howard Dean is a Hard-Core Liberal.

I am truly looking forward to drinking the lemonade that you buy. In fact at this point I think President George W. Bush would defeat Dr. Dean by double digits. But that is just my opinion.

http://www.issues2000.org/Howard_Dean.htm

[Tiger Al 0]

So, you're saying that Bush will win by ten or more votes???

[Ranger12 46]

I just saw Kerry ripping Dean about the comment he made saying he would not have hesitated going into Iraq as part of a mutilateral movement. Kerry said we do not need the UNs permission to go to war. Wasn't Kerry anti-war? What is really funny about Kerry's comments was that he mentioned Clinton with Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy as great war-time leaders. What a joke. TigerAl, if the democrats keep ripping each other, what is going to be left to run against Bush?

[Tigermike 3,058]

So, you're saying that Bush will win by ten or more votes???

That would be ironic wouldn't it. A very close election, decided by Florida voters and President Bush winning and an Algore endorsed Dean loosing!

[Tiger Al 0]

So, you're saying that Bush will win by ten or more votes???

That would be ironic wouldn't it. A very close election, decided by Florida voters and President Bush winning and an Algore endorsed Dean loosing!

It would be so ironic that it would have to border on illegal!!!

[Tigermike 3,058]

It would be so ironic that it would have to border on illegal!!!

Especially if the democrats tried to steal the election again!

[Tiger Al 0]

It would be so ironic that it would have to border on illegal!!! 

Especially if the democrats tried to steal the election again!

No comment, except to say "no comment."